Owners

Remove this Banner Ad

Indie_

The Boy Who Lived
Mar 11, 2012
4,588
6,292
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Liverpool, Patriots & UConn
Saudi sh*t stains having a whinge over their cringe fans already.

In a statement headed “guidance on matchday attire” the club on Wednesday said it was “kindly asking supporters to refrain from wearing traditional Arabic clothing or Middle East-inspired head coverings at matches if they would not ordinarily wear such attire”.

Newcastle urge fans to avoid ‘culturally inappropriate’ clothing at games | Newcastle United | The Guardian
 

Bostonian

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2015
16,840
17,093
AFL Club
Carlton

Indie_

The Boy Who Lived
Mar 11, 2012
4,588
6,292
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Liverpool, Patriots & UConn
Terrible point.

If a bunch of Japanese fans turned up in kilts because a Japanese team had a new Scottish owner nobody would give a sh*t. I know I wouldn't.
That's not really a great comparison. Nor really does it matter if you gave a sh*t or not. It's for people from the culture that's being appropriated to decide whether it is offensive or not. If a Sikh owner took over Brighton, and the Brighton fans all started wearing turbans to the Amex then it would be horrifically offensive.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bostonian

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2015
16,840
17,093
AFL Club
Carlton
That's not really a great comparison. Nor really does it matter if you gave a sh*t or not. It's for people from the culture that's being appropriated to decide whether it is offensive or not. If a Sikh owner took over Brighton, and the Brighton fans all started wearing turbans to the Amex then it would be horrifically offensive.
It's a perfect comparison, it's literally the same thing. It's just a bit of clothing.

It's England not SA anyway, nobody has to give one single crap how they feel about it.

If a Sikh takes over the club and people wear turbans so what.

Nobody cares one bit if people wear nuns habits or dress as priests, nobody would care if some Catholics were a bit miffed about it.

Or are you going to say that's different too?
 

Indie_

The Boy Who Lived
Mar 11, 2012
4,588
6,292
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Liverpool, Patriots & UConn
It's a perfect comparison, it's literally the same thing. It's just a bit of clothing.

It's England not SA anyway, nobody has to give one single crap how they feel about it.

If a Sikh takes over the club and people wear turbans so what.

Nobody cares one bit if people wear nuns habits or dress as priests, nobody would care if some Catholics were a bit miffed about it.

Or are you going to say that's different too?
Some Japanese bloke wearing a kilt doesn't carry the same connotations behind it as some Geordie wearing a thawb, keffiyeh and agal because while the acts you are describing (putting on clothing of a different culture) are the same thing sure, the context in which they are happening is very different. There is a history of racism coming from the UK/white people against people of colour - and that extends to cultural appropriation too. A long history of British imperialism/colonialism makes it far less acceptable for your average Anglo Brit to be dressing up in Middle-Eastern garb or Indian garb than vice versa. Similar to how it is generally accepted for people in certain communities to use certain reclaimed words which would not be appropriate for people not from those communities to use in the same way.
 
Last edited:

Bostonian

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2015
16,840
17,093
AFL Club
Carlton
Some Japanese bloke wearing a kilt doesn't carry the same connotations behind it as some Geordie wearing a thawb, keffiyeh and agal because while the acts you are describing (putting on clothing of a different culture) are the same thing sure, but the context in which they are happening is very different. There is a history of racism coming from the UK/white people against people of colour - and that extends to cultural appropriation too. A long history of British imperialism/colonialism makes it far less acceptable for your average Anglo Brit to be dressing up in Middle-Eastern garb or Indian garb than vice versa. Similar to how it is generally accepted for people in certain communities to use certain reclaimed words which would not be appropriate for people not from those communities to use in the same way.
Oh please, don't lets make these turds any kind of victims here.

You're just spouting left wing crap now.

They deserve to be mocked and parodied for being the backwards muppets they truly are. They should be placed in the same vein of parody one might do to mock redneck racists.

See this is why their societies are so f’ed up, people getting offended and then committing heinous crimes because they got offended.

You talk of colonisation yet the Arabs did exactly the same thing in the ME and North Africa. You knew that right?
 

Indie_

The Boy Who Lived
Mar 11, 2012
4,588
6,292
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Liverpool, Patriots & UConn
Oh please, don't lets make these turds any kind of victims here.
I have no interest in defending the Saudi regime or making them out to be victims. They are not the only people who would be affected by such behaviour from Newcastle fans.

You're just spouting left wing crap now.

They deserve to be mocked and parodied for being the backwards muppets they truly are. They should be placed in the same vein of parody one might do to mock redneck racists.
I have no problem mocking, parodying or calling out the backwardness of the Saudi regime. I have done so just as vociferously as you have in this very thread. However, anyone suggesting that people from a different culture ought to refrain from a behaviour because it is culturally insensitive is not behaving in a backwards fashion. Sure the Saudis are an absolutely despicable regime, and who knows the true motivations behind them putting out a statement like that - but I know that it is offensive behaviour in general for people who come from that part of the world. Like I said from the beginning, the world's worst people making a somewhat correct point.

You talk of colonisation yet the Arabs did exactly the same thing in the ME and North Africa. You knew that right?
The Muslim conquest of Mahgreb happened in the 7th century. It's laughable to compare that with modern day colonialism of Britain and other European powers.
 

Bostonian

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2015
16,840
17,093
AFL Club
Carlton
I have no interest in defending the Saudi regime or making them out to be victims. They are not the only people who would be affected by such behaviour from Newcastle fans.

I have no problem mocking, parodying or calling out the backwardness of the Saudi regime. I have done so just as vociferously as you have in this very thread. However, anyone suggesting that people from a different culture ought to refrain from a behaviour because it is culturally insensitive is not behaving in a backwards fashion. Sure the Saudis are an absolutely despicable regime, and who knows the true motivations behind them putting out a statement like that - but I know that it is offensive behaviour in general for people who come from that part of the world. Like I said from the beginning, the world's worst people making a somewhat correct point.
They can be offended all they want. But who cares if they are.

They only have a point if they practice what they preach, they don't, so they don't deserve any special considerations or respect.

Maybe make a deal with them. We'll stop taking the piss out of them if they let gay people walk around openly over there.

The only thing they are making is a massive example of their hypocrisy.


The Muslim conquest of Mahgreb happened in the 7th century. It's laughable to compare that with modern day colonialism of Britain and other European powers.
The Copts would disagree with you.
 

Art Vandelay_

TheBrownDog
Oct 28, 2012
90,485
120,378
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Bushrangers, AC Milan
What a sport we have.

Bayern as German league cannibals the least insulting club doing well. Besides Napoli.

ESL conspirators still doing well across the continent. Sportswashers are atop France and 2nd in England. Pond scum lead the EPL.

Real and Barca who’ve had reckless ownership causing monetary issues still doing well enough.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,261
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
What a sport we have.

Bayern as German league cannibals the least insulting club doing well. Besides Napoli.

ESL conspirators still doing well across the continent. Sportswashers are atop France and 2nd in England. Pond scum lead the EPL.

Real and Barca who’ve had reckless ownership causing monetary issues still doing well enough.
And the team that wins is still the one that scores more goals than their opponent.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg

So much for PIF "not being Saudi Arabia". If the minister is chirping up this sounds like it is happening.

Bring on the permanent rule change. Allow existing related party deals but allow only 10% increase of these per year.

Stops a new owner coming in and cheating an honest rival out of a relegation battle.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,261
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****

So much for PIF "not being Saudi Arabia". If the minister is chirping up this sounds like it is happening.

Bring on the permanent rule change. Allow existing related party deals but allow only 10% increase of these per year.

Stops a new owner coming in and cheating an honest rival out of a relegation battle.
If a related party wants to sponsor the Newcastle shirt and pays fair market value there shouldn't be any restriction on them doing so.

By saying that Leicester can keep their related party sponsorship and Everton can keep theirs, but Newcastle can't do the same it makesit an unfair rule.

And if saying that Brighton can keep their Saudi sponsorships, and Man United can keep theirs, but Newcastle can't get a sponsor from Saudi Arabia that also makes it an unfair rule.
 

Bostonian

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2015
16,840
17,093
AFL Club
Carlton
If a related party wants to sponsor the Newcastle shirt and pays fair market value there shouldn't be any restriction on them doing so.

By saying that Leicester can keep their related party sponsorship and Everton can keep theirs, but Newcastle can't do the same it makesit an unfair rule.

And if saying that Brighton can keep their Saudi sponsorships, and Man United can keep theirs, but Newcastle can't get a sponsor from Saudi Arabia that also makes it an unfair rule.
We don't have any Saudi Sponsorships.

 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
If a related party wants to sponsor the Newcastle shirt and pays fair market value there shouldn't be any restriction on them doing so.

By saying that Leicester can keep their related party sponsorship and Everton can keep theirs, but Newcastle can't do the same it makes it an unfair rule.

And if saying that Brighton can keep their Saudi sponsorships, and Man United can keep theirs, but Newcastle can't get a sponsor from Saudi Arabia that also makes it an unfair rule.
All teams should be allowed to keep their related 3rd party sponsorship deals. A limit on the amount of new related 3rd party deals can and should be voted on as a new rule by the majority of clubs. It's unfair for a club mid season to bring on a sponsor that suddenly pumps big money into the team who coincidentally happens to be owned by an investment fund linked to such a new owner.

To be fair Newcastle should be allowed to replace whatever commercial income Ashley was providing them this season with their own related 3rd party income plus an allowance for a set limit increase per season. This isn't stopping Newcastle at all from sourcing sponsorship in Saudi Arabia. It will also stop the likes of Bill Gates ploughing an extra 100m in mid season via a microsoft "sponsorship" after buying a PL club mid season.


The only people that can possibly have a problem with this are supporters of clubs who have ownership that are able to via the governments or businesses they control plough huge amounts of commercial revenue into the club all of a sudden.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,261
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
The value of Newcastles brand is already significantly higher than it was last week.

They aim to be one of the top sides in England and Europe, winning silverware and playing in the biggest matches.

So they won't be asking "17th place Newcastle under Mike Ashley plus a few percent" prices for their sponsorships. They'll be asking top dollar.

What you're asking for is a situation where a non related company can pay a fair value for a sponsorship but a related company can't.

It's anti competitive and illegal and something that supporters of all clubs should see for what it is.

FWIW the current law doesn't affect us. I know many will think any business from Abu Dhabi is a related party but we currently don't have any RPT sponsors. I've been reading a lot in the press that we've benefited from RPT deal with Etihad, but it's been confirmed time and time again (the latest by CAS) that Etihad isn't.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
The value of Newcastles brand is already significantly higher than it was last week.

They aim to be one of the top sides in England and Europe, winning silverware and playing in the biggest matches.

So they won't be asking "17th place Newcastle under Mike Ashley plus a few percent" prices for their sponsorships. They'll be asking top dollar.

What you're asking for is a situation where a non related company can pay a fair value for a sponsorship but a related company can't.

It's anti competitive and illegal and something that supporters of all clubs should see for what it is.

FWIW the current law doesn't affect us. I know many will think any business from Abu Dhabi is a related party but we currently don't have any RPT sponsors. I've been reading a lot in the press that we've benefited from RPT deal with Etihad, but it's been confirmed time and time again (the latest by CAS) that Etihad isn't.
Any business thats owned by the Abu Dhabi investment fund is related as thats run by Mansour & the Abu Dhabi royal family.

It isnt a coincidence that the majority of your commercial income is sourced from state owned entities that are run by your owner even if you believe that one has nothing to do with the other.

And how laughable that Newcastle sponsorship can alll of a sudden be considered worth more. Thats the exact argument used to cheat the ffp system. They are in no different of a situation this week than they were in August.

The rule affects all clubs evenly. They wiĺl all be able to continue their related party deals and also pursue new related party deals to a set limit which would be the same for all clubs. Thats absolutely not anti comprtitive or illegal in anyway.

It would be like an AFL club arguing they shouldn't be restricted by the salary cap to push back against it.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,261
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
Any business thats owned by the Abu Dhabi investment fund is related as thats run by Mansour & the Abu Dhabi royal family.
It's clearly not.

It isnt a coincidence that the majority of your commercial income is sourced from state owned entities that are run by your owner even if you believe that one has nothing to do with the other.
None of our commercial income is sourced from state owned entities run by our (majority) owner.

And how laughable that Newcastle sponsorship can alll of a sudden be considered worth more. Thats the exact argument used to cheat the ffp system. They are in no different of a situation this week than they were in August.

The rule affects all clubs evenly. They wiĺl all be able to continue their related party deals and also pursue new related party deals to a set limit which would be the same for all clubs. Thats absolutely not anti comprtitive or illegal in anyway.
The last two paragraphs are when PMSL is the only appropriate response.

It would be like an AFL club arguing they shouldn't be restricted by the salary cap to push back against it.
It would be like a salary cap where clubs were restricted from spending more than a certain amount except for the clubs that were spending more than that amount before the rules came in.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
It's clearly not.

None of our commercial income is sourced from state owned entities run by our (majority) owner.
And nobody ever claimed they were owned by your owner. But they are run by the Abu Dhabi royal family. Your holding company that owns the club is an investment fund for the Abu Dhabi Royal family so the relationship is obvious. Only Man City fans are deluded enough to claim that Sheikh Mansour's control of these state owned entities has no relationship to them all "sponsoring" Manchester City. Your club is effectively a state owned operation of Abu Dhabi even if it isn't officially on paper. Much like Amanda Staveley saying her patterns are the "PIF" and not Saudi Arabia. Yes on paper that is technically true but in reality they are one and the same. And we are seeing that already by Saudi ministers getting involved with the Premier League ruling on related sponsorship rules.


It would be like a salary cap where clubs were restricted from spending more than a certain amount except for the clubs that were spending more than that amount before the rules came in.
You've repeatedly tried to claim that this rule only applies to Newcastle if it's brought in. It will apply to all clubs and to suggest otherwise is just not true.


Newcastle have signed a shareholder agreement with the PL that says they will abide by any rule that is voted in by a majority of clubs (14+) and isn't vetoed by the FA so they can have zero complaints if it goes ahead. Man United also will not be able to just load the company up with commercial income from Glazer majority owned businesses so this will affect them just as much as Newcastle.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad